"If we can't have the dogs chained to the tree, what's the point of having them?"

Once again, no one said that all dogs who are tied up are neglected and unloved or abused, we said its not the best life for them.  And the fact is, its not the best life... so I think the law is not geared at punishing anyone... its to lessen the amount of neglected dogs and to give even the ones who are loved, but kept outside, a better life.
 
As with any law, you are not going to make everyone happy...

Tres bon, mon Ami. Very good, my friend. Etouffe is a way of preparing shrimp or crawfish.
 

vraiment...?

 
I picked that up from somewhere. I think now a closer translation would have been "certainly" or "indeed." So, I could said that, instead.
 

I agree with everyone disagreeing with you!  Whats the point of having a dog just to tie it out side and forget it.  I could not read past the second paragraph because my heart sunk just to think you rather condem you pet than love your pet.  I'm lost for words toooo many hurting feelings!!!!!!!!!!!

ORIGINAL: mehpennHOw can anyone make a statement like that? That would be like me saying ALL PITT BULLS are aggressive, CHOW CHOW's can't be trusted around kids at all, DOBERMAN's and GERMAN SHEPHERD's are notoriously aggessive by nature.
ALL dogs who live indoors are healthier and happier than those who don't.

 
I think you've made a false comparison, and I don't believe in moral relativism. One can make absolute statements in some cases, and I think this is one of them. A better comparison would be - should all children go to school? I personally know a few people who dropped out of high school and were allowed to not attend school, and then went on to apply & get into college and go on to have careers. Does this mean school should not be mandatory by law, because some people "do just fine" without it? Absolutely not.
 
One thing I love about this law is that it's a big step toward the law recognizing dogs as living dependents rather than property. Libertarianism should not apply to pet animals - that is, the law should absolutely have a say on how they are cared for. You can neglect or take sub-par care of your vehicle, but you shouldn't be allowed to do the same for your pets. Obviously there is a fuzzy line drawn where the govt/law should not intrude, but this line also exists in child welfare. In that area as well, mistakes are sometimes made, but overall child welfare laws do more good than harm.

Just because some one is raised to believe a dog has it's place in the role of their family and that place is outside... doesn't mean they don't love or care for their dog! How can you say that?! That's ridiculous! People are raised to belive and accept differnet things... just because that opinion differs from your own doesn't mean they care less or are less of a person.  So they don't like dogs inside and believe a dogs place is outside... so? SO? You don't agree.. so?

 
Again, this is moral relativism and I can't accept it. Not too long ago, a lot of people were raised to believe black people were not equal to white people - fortunately, people can change and go against what they were raised to believe, if they are educated and can learn a better way. By no means do I wish to equate racism with tying a dog to a tree, but I use that example to show that "that's the way they were raised" is a faulty argument. It may excuse a person from culpability, but only up to the point where they receive a better education and either choose or choose not to overcome the shortcomings of their previous, flawed way of thinking.
 
In general, I just don't think there is any purpose in defending the "right" to keep a dog chained to a tree, unless the purpose is to defend loved ones against accusations of cruelty. I'm sure some of the people who do it are good people who just don't know any better. But the law does not judge your character, it judges your actions. You can be a wonderful person and still break the law. Why are dogs chained to trees something we really want to have around?

My chain of thought is why have a dog at all if you are going to leave them outside all the time tied to a tree.

Amy, don't feel bad about the *southern thing*. You'd be surprised at how many people think all Californians are fruitcakes who run around in bikinis all year long and spend all their time waxing their surfboards.[]

Joyce

Ditto!!

You mean they don't?  Hmmm, maybe that's what I did wrong when I lived in CA.....

Yes, and we Alaskans live in igloos surrounded by sled dogs and it's -30 year round here. [8D]

BTW, be sure to change your money from US dollars to Alaskan currency when you visit. [8|]

 
We Texans ride horses to school/work and go to the "saloon" every friday...[8|] Ya'll know what I'm talking about!

You had horses? I had to walk 5 miles to school, barefoot. In the snow. Uphill. Both ways.
 

ORIGINAL: ron2

You had horses? I had to walk 5 miles to school, barefoot. In the snow. Uphill. Both ways.

 
LMAO!  I am laughing because that is, word for word, what I say to my dad when he starts pretending to moan about how life was so much different "back then".
 
Kate

I think that saying started in the Paleolithic Era.
 

Just to chirp in for a moment, I find this a very interesting and well debated topic on both sides. From what I've read it would appear to me that ones opinon on 24/7 outside dogs and chaining has a a lot to do with the status one affords their pet. Jones for instance likes use comparisons with children and oppressed blacks to make his/her? argument. So, I assume you afford your pets a similar status. A lot of people don't. Their pets fit in somewhere below immediate family and above perfect stranger. I think many people even put their dogs above most people. I'm not judging either, just saying.

A lot of posters argue that we should have our dogs live in the house because it is "the ideal" situation. I happen to agree, but wonder why our ducks and horses are left out? Wouldn't living in a nice warm cosy house be "the ideal" for them as well? You love them, don't you?